On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 03:05:02AM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
> ---
> t/t7700-repack.sh | 7 +++++++
> t/test-lib-functions.sh | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
OK, I stand by my thinking in the previous patch that this one is where
the changes to builtin/repack.c belong.
> diff --git a/t/t7700-repack.sh b/t/t7700-repack.sh
> index c4c3d1a15d9..fc2cc9d37be 100755
> --- a/t/t7700-repack.sh
> +++ b/t/t7700-repack.sh
> @@ -777,6 +777,13 @@ test_expect_success 'repack -ad cleans up old .tmp-* packs' '
> test_must_be_empty tmpfiles
> '
>
> +test_expect_success '--full-name-hash option passes through to pack-objects' '
> + GIT_TRACE2_EVENT="$(pwd)/full-trace.txt" \
> + git repack -a --full-name-hash &&
> + test_subcommand_flex git pack-objects --full-name-hash <full-trace.txt
OK. To be honest, I am not sure I would have written the same test to
test trivially correct behavior, but I am not opposed to having such a
test either.
I do think that test_subcommand_flex may be unnecessary though, since
you could instead write this as:
test_subcommand "git pack-objects.*--full-name-hash" <full-trace.txt
and get the same behavior.
> +'
> +
> +
Nit: extra newline here.
Thanks,
Taylor
